The reason there is no money for parks has to do with the growing budget of hiring more people and paying more in bonding costs. Spending went up $85 million under Fulop, if he wanted to, he could have spent money on parks instead he hired more supporters.

I don't think it's a spite vote at all. I think the City made a choice and now they want me to pay for that choice. I don't think that's fair. I think the city should somehow retroactively recall all of the abatements instead.

$0.02 for each $1000.20 for 1,0002.00 for 10,00020 for 100,000200 for 1,000,000

I noticed the interpretative statement on the ballot literally says "The annual yearly rate would be $0.02 per $100 of assessed valuation, meaning that a property assessed at $100,000 would pay no more than $20 per year...". It must have been reading this thread.

WHAT THE....!! You want me to vote yes, so I can pay even more tax? Are you crazy...?! I'll definitely be voting NO.

Why don't you ask me again after you collect this extra tax from all those developers with 25 and 30 year abatements you hand out. You said something about it being "pennies a week" and for "a good purpose." That being the case it won't be difficult for your developer friends to pay it as well.

Check in with me again after you've made some progress in getting EVERYONE to pay.

The Jersey City Parks Coalition has advocated for the creation of a Municipal Open Space, Recreation and Historic Property Preservation Fund to create dedicated funding for our municipal parks, open spaces and preservation of our historic resources. It is a non-binding referendum which means the City is gauging the residents’ willingness to pay a small amount of money directed specifically to improve, repair, develop and acquire open space and parks and the preservation of historic structures. JERSEY CITY PUBLIC QUESTION 2ESTABLISHMENT OF A LOCAL OPEN SPACE TRUST FUNDShould the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City establish a Municipal Open Space, Recreation and Historic Property Preservation Fund, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:12-15.7 to be funded at a rate not to exceed $0.02 per $100 of assessed valuation of each annual tax levy commencing with the first tax quarter for calendar year 2017 and used exclusively for the acquisition, development and maintenance of lands for recreation, conservation and historic purposes?Much like what’s being proposed here, Hudson County voters approved a countywide open space trust fund in 2003 that is expected to bring in $20 million this year (that tax is one cent per $100 of assessed value). In Jersey City, the fund was used to expand Boyd McGuiness Park, rehabilitate soccer fields at Caven Point, fund the creation of Berry Lane Park and more.Over the last 10 years numerous Coalition Projects were funded through HC Open Space Funding bringing over $500,000 of improvements to these Jersey City parks and historic sites:Historic – Pershing Field: The America Triumphant statue and the Fourth Regiment Arch were restoredParks – Van Vorst Park: Children’s Sprayground in conjunction with Green Acres FundingHistoric – The Historic Harsimus Cemetery: Preservation of the Gate Keepers home/structureParks – Village Park: The full rehabilitation of the abandoned First Street ParkSince 1988, the United States has seen 2,524 ballot initiatives approving new taxes for open space, according to the Trust for Public Land. 1,902 have passed. As of last November, voters have approved open space trust funds in 237 New Jersey municipalities and all 21 counties. The only municipality in Hudson County with its own open space trust fund is Hoboken, approved by voters in 2007. The ballot initiative was passed 62 to 38 percent. The two-cents-per-$100 tax led to an expected $2.24 million this year.To levy the tax after voters have approved a ballot question, the county or municipal governing body must adopt an ordinance that establishes the dedicated tax, sets up a separate trust fund to hold the tax proceeds, and states the purposes for which they may be used, as proposed in the ballot question. Full public disclosure and a review of all expenditures would be required and only used for identified purposes. Another advantage would be that the City becomes eligible for a greater match of funds through the State Green Acres program and other public & private sources maximizing the City’s investment.A YES vote assures that in the future old and dying trees in our parks will be readily replaced, park equipment will be repaired quickly and updated periodically, parks will be kept safe and usable for everyone. There will even be funds available for historic preservation of significant Jersey City structures and sites. It’s up to you. Make certain to vote on November 8th and let’s keep Jersey City parks and historic sites the best they can be for many future generations.

"Voters should say no, though, on Jersey City Public Question No. 2, which would levy a new tax dedicated to creating a trust fund for parks and historic preservation.

The tax would amount to 2 cents per $100 of assessed value, which is not a large sum. But with a citywide property revaluation set to be completed next year, one that will change assessments for many homeowners, voters owe it to property owners to wait until the new assessments are cemented before approving a new property tax."

Can you also provide their statement on whether to move the elections?

Different forum

You literally started this thread and titled it "Vote No for 2 city questions" and you specifically address whether to move the election in the thread and in the video. So how is that issue not relevant and part of a different forum?

"Voters should say no, though, on Jersey City Public Question No. 2, which would levy a new tax dedicated to creating a trust fund for parks and historic preservation.

The tax would amount to 2 cents per $100 of assessed value, which is not a large sum. But with a citywide property revaluation set to be completed next year, one that will change assessments for many homeowners, voters owe it to property owners to wait until the new assessments are cemented before approving a new property tax."

Can you also provide their statement on whether to move the elections?

Different forum

This thread, which you started, is about two city questions. Did you forget that?

This is what the JJ had to say on the other question:On the first of the two public questions, voters are asked if the mayor and council elections should move from May to November. We have previously endorsed this move, citing the generally higher turnout in November elections.

I disagree with the JJ on the new tax because I don't think the hike is incremental enough to be make an impact. I also believe that we need public spaces.

"Voters should say no, though, on Jersey City Public Question No. 2, which would levy a new tax dedicated to creating a trust fund for parks and historic preservation.

The tax would amount to 2 cents per $100 of assessed value, which is not a large sum. But with a citywide property revaluation set to be completed next year, one that will change assessments for many homeowners, voters owe it to property owners to wait until the new assessments are cemented before approving a new property tax."

Can you also provide their statement on whether to move the elections?

"Voters should say no, though, on Jersey City Public Question No. 2, which would levy a new tax dedicated to creating a trust fund for parks and historic preservation.

The tax would amount to 2 cents per $100 of assessed value, which is not a large sum. But with a citywide property revaluation set to be completed next year, one that will change assessments for many homeowners, voters owe it to property owners to wait until the new assessments are cemented before approving a new property tax."

Can you also provide their statement on whether to move the elections?

"Voters should say no, though, on Jersey City Public Question No. 2, which would levy a new tax dedicated to creating a trust fund for parks and historic preservation.

The tax would amount to 2 cents per $100 of assessed value, which is not a large sum. But with a citywide property revaluation set to be completed next year, one that will change assessments for many homeowners, voters owe it to property owners to wait until the new assessments are cemented before approving a new property tax."

one: that isn't even coherent english. is it 20 per hundred, 20 per thousand or 20 per hundred thousand?

two: the only answer that makes any remote sense is the last. because you are so damn stupid, i will copy/paste my earlier math because wow you are dumb

on another note, let's just move the zeros over and spell out the math for the double-digit iq people in here:

$0.02 for each $1000.20 for 1,0002.00 for 10,00020 for 100,000200 for 1,000,000

seriously, go find a third grader and apologize to them because you can't do basic shit as well as them.

OH HEY LOOK IF ITS 20 PER 100,000 THEN IT'S 200 PER MILLION LIKE WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG YOU DUMBASS

when people get upset that we're not providing enough services for the mentally handicapped, they should point to you as a case study. get someone in your life with the slightest modicum of common sense and start listening to them.

Yvonne wrote:I went to the council meeting to ask the B.A (Business Administrator) about the .02 cent per hundreds for open space. What will the taxes be after reval on a million dollar home downtown? He asked me if I want the math and I said yes. He said $2,000. He then spoke to Corporate Council. That number has to change after reval. The B.A said a half million after reval will pay $100.00. I do not know what Corporation Council said to him but I suspect the city plans on changing the formula.

Holy crap! At least two of us have shown you the math here. You go and ask the BA, who gives you the SAME ANSWER and you still refuse to accept it and believe it. What is wrong with you ?? This is not a matter of opinion, Yvonne. The math is simple, but it happens to go against what you want to believe. This is why people on this board get so upset with you.

Yvonne wrote:I went to the council meeting to ask the B.A (Business Administrator) about the .02 cent per hundreds for open space. What will the taxes be after reval on a million dollar home downtown? He asked me if I want the math and I said yes. He said $2,000.

I changed my mind, she's a moron who can't discern between 0.02 cents and 0.02 dollars. The former would be a tax of $2 per million, the latter $200.

And how many will show up at the run-off election in December during the holiday season, when the elections will be decided?

Also what happens when we have 4 to 6 slates of candidates each with 9 councilmembers plus any independents added to the ballot? New machines at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars? I've know of 6 candidates interested in running for Mayor.

I went to the council meeting to ask the B.A (Business Administrator) about the .02 cent per hundreds for open space. What will the taxes be after reval on a million dollar home downtown? He asked me if I want the math and I said yes. He said $2,000. He then spoke to Corporate Council. That number has to change after reval. The B.A said a half million after reval will pay $100.00. I do not know what Corporation Council said to him but I suspect the city plans on changing the formula.

Yvonne wrote:Stack is looking after the interest of his constituents in his district, I consider him a good man. After all, Union City is much cleaner than JC so he must be doing something right.

Stack is a power broker, and the fewer people who vote favor his breed who turn out their constituencies to keep power. The myriad elections here were always about keeping down the vote so unions and other organized special interests would dominate via "election fatigue".

The "election day jobs program" argument would be hysterical if it wasn't indicative of the "old school" way of spreading the perks for support.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:Shame on you for knowingly using incorrect math and lying or just being an idiot by unknowingly using incorrect math to mislead people on the real cost of this to further your agenda.

That's a real tough one, liar or moron. It pains me to say it, but I vote for liar, since she does the same thing misleading people on RE taxes.

Exactly. Even after I took pains to show her why her math was wrong, she refused to acknowledge her mistake/misrepresentation and simply stated she disagreed with me.

Yvonne wrote:In an open letter, State Senator, Brian Stack sent to his constituents, he said to vote No on question one, Keep Elections in May! Stack said moving it makes it confusing.

I would not be confused, nor do I consider Senator Stack someone I'd take my voting advice from. I make my own decisions and so should you.

Stack is looking after the interest of his constituents in his district, I consider him a good man. After all, Union City is much cleaner than JC so he must be doing something right.

He may very well be a good man and very good at looking after his constituents' interests... but his, or any other politician's opinions, do not influence how I vote, especially on referendums. I prefer to think for myself, and what he considers confusing is different from what I consider confusing. Him being a Senator does not give his opinion any more weight than anyone else's.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:Shame on you for knowingly using incorrect math and lying or just being an idiot by unknowingly using incorrect math to mislead people on the real cost of this to further your agenda.

That's a real tough one, liar or moron. It pains me to say it, but I vote for liar, since she does the same thing misleading people on RE taxes.

corybraiterman wrote:just because you're an idiot who can neither do basic math nor apparently read a ballot does not mean that applies to the rest of us

Shame on your mother for not raising you with manners.

Shame on your for wasting taxpayer money with your ridiculous lawsuit to make this (election date issue) show up on the ballot, yet again. For all the griping you're doing about this increase, how much money did you force the city to waste on your stupid lawsuit?

Shame on you for knowingly using incorrect math and lying or just being an idiot by unknowingly using incorrect math to mislead people on the real cost of this to further your agenda.

Tell us, when these both pass with overwhelming margins are you going to respect the will of the people this time or are you going to go the way of your preferred candidate Donald Trump and waste more city money by contesting these in court?